![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Does anyone know whether the Panama Canal Zone was "leased" from Panama? That was asserted here. Note that the citizenship issue is mentioned in footnote 2 of this article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) and Crewdson, John (2008-02-18).
"John McCain's birthright: Fit for the presidency". The Swamp. Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)"(undent)The article has just been edited to say that McCain was "born in Panama." [1] It does appear that the Canal Zone was "in Panama" rather than "part of the U.S." However, this seems like a very technical point, and I'm not sure why it's important for this article to report this very technical fact. The treaty said:
“ | The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority....As the price or compensation for the rights, powers and privileges granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States, the Government of the United States agrees to pay to the Republic of Panama the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in gold coin of the United States on the exchange of the ratification of this convention and also an annual payment during the life of this convention of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in like gold coin, beginning nine years after the date aforesaid. | ” |
So, it does look like the PCZ technically remained part of Panama. But inclusion of this technical fact seems to be a back-door way of attacking McCain's eligibility for President; the notability of this fact is entirely related to the presidency. So, I would be more comfortable if this fact would instead be recited in the article on McCain's 2008 campaign, rather than here. It basically seems like trivia in the context of this article. On the other hand, I can see why it might be appropriate to mention what country a person was born in, as a routine part of any Wikipedia biography. So, I have mixed feelings. Incidentally, even if he was technically born in a foreign country, the fact remains that both of his parents were citizens, which has always been the strongest argument for his presidential eligibility. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning the country of birth first isn't really the standard way of writing it out, so that unfairly draws attention to the country. I've changed the order to the more standard "city, state, country" format. -- 24.57.151.98 ( talk) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found some issues in the main article that seem to be repeated here. Please see Talk:John McCain#Imbalance and cherry picking, and I suggest a thorough review of the way the sources are used here. Having reviewed a few more since that example, I'm not sure a POV tag isn't needed on both articles, but I hope those with more time will review more closely. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I share the scepticism of the claim that McCain is descended from Robert the Bruce, but maybe someone could clarify this claim. Does he say which of Bruce's immediate descendants he is descended from? If not, his claim is extremely dubious. I gather from the Guardian article that he claims to come from the Clan Lamont, from people who were driven out during the civil war period. However looking at this clan's website (a link from this article) they did have a turbulent history during the civil war, but there is no claim that the chiefs of this relatively minor clan had royal ancestry. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article is wrong. No one ever claimed McCain descends from Robert the Bruce, but his grand-aunt does seem to. Also, McCain seems to descend from Edward I, and from earlier Scottish monarchs. Far from genealogists agreeing with the Guardian article, they all disagree with it (just look at soc.genealogy.medieval). See my roundup of links here, which includes a link to the full descent of McCain's grandaunt from Robert the Bruce: http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.mccain.html The "John McCain and Robert the Bruce" controversy] MarkHumphrysIreland ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If there is any further discussion about this, here are the facts, for the record: Professional genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner has traced a descent of McCain from Edward I, King of England, and hence from Malcolm III, King of Scotland, and from Charlemagne. [2] Professional genealogist Will Johnson has traced a descent of McCain's grand-aunt Mary Louise Earle from Robert III, King of Scotland, and hence from Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, and from Charlemagne. [3] I wouldn't cite the Guardian article at all. There is no intellectual content in it. MarkHumphrysIreland ( talk) 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WTR, you should sigificantly beef up the lead, per WP:LEAD (stand-alone summary of all highpoints of the article, should leave the reader satisfied if the reader goes no further); it's currently a bit skimpy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the lead, I left it intentionally light because this is a subarticle, that most readers will have gotten to via links from the main article. I don't want to regurgitate the summary material that they already read there, here; if they clicked that link, it means they are interested in more detail, so I want to get right to that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The lead is much better now, although I corrected it to conform with article naming, bolding and linking per WP:LEAD. [5]
I remain concerned about the cherrypicking of negative content highlighted above in FerryLodge's post; I don't have time to read the entire article today, so perhaps that has already been dealt with? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Another note, section headings could use some work (which might impact article organization). This heading is very long and mixes too many topics:
and while it refers to marriage and children, it's under a heading about his military career. Later on, we find another reference to a marriage under his military career, so there's mixture of career and personal, but all under the heading of military career. I'm not sure how to quickly/easily sort this out, so some reorganization and rationalization of section headings may be needed. The organization of Ronald Reagan might lend some ideas. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just saw Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present in the infobox. It should be moved to Senate career of John McCain (see WP:MOSDATE regarding avoiding use of "to present" which becomes dated). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, on the "cite news" template, I prefer to use publisher=''[[whatever]]'' for newspapers and publisher=[[whatever2]] for wire services, broadcast organizations, etc., because then I can be consistent on using the same parameter. I reserve work= for things like specific programs on a broadcast network. It also allows me to do mixtures, like publisher=[[Associated Press]] for ''[[The New York Times]]''. The inconsistency between one parameter getting automatically italicized and the other not is an annoyance of Template:Cite news, one that I tried to pursue at Template talk:Cite news but didn't get far on. Anyway, since you I know you don't like the cite templates to begin with, I hope you'll give me leeway to do it my way. As long as I'm consistent throughout the article, I don't see a problem. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says that, "while at St. Stephen's he began to develop an unruly, defiant streak." The cite is to an article by John Arundel, which in turn cites to Timberg. Why not cite directly to Timberg? Also, Timberg wrote that McCain had a "defiant, unruly streak" but perhaps we should do more to put this in our own words than just reverse the words "defiant" and "unruly." Moreover, Timberg goes on to explain that McCain “mocked the school's dress code by wearing blue jeans with his coat and tie." This seems to be the kind of thing that Timberg considers to be "defiant" and "unruly" but I suspect that many Wikipedia readers might not be so severe. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article also says that most of the students at the Episcopal School were children of "wealthy Southerners", and the cite is to Alexander's Man of the People. [6] But I didn't notice Alexander say anything about "wealthy." Alexander quotes one of McCain's classmates as saying that their dormitory "hadn't been renovated" since the Civil War, and "There were cockroaches in there. One day they swarmed in and you couldn't see the floor. The curtained alcoves we slept in were like the pictures you see of hospitals in the Civil War." Maybe wealthy parents wanted their kids to experience poverty. Anyway, where does it say that the parents were wealthy? McCain probably didn't get a glimpse of the wealthy life by living in such conditions. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In places where he's cited blasting himself, I think some mitigating stuff he said should be in the next (or previous sentence) instead of substantially later in the article (e.g. later in the article it's mentioned that "Despite his difficulties, McCain later wrote that he never defamed the more compelling traditions of the Academy – those involving courage, resilience, honor, and sacrifice for one's country"). Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There's a similar issue with the class rank. The article says, "His classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities[34] and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability. His class rank was further lowered by his poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer." But then it's in the next paragraph (several sentences later) where it's stated that "he was fifth from the bottom in class rank,[38] 894th out of 899." Just stylistically, I'd prefer these closely related things to be right next to each other, in the same way that I suggested McCain's self-deprecations ought to be next to his self-congratulation. But this is stylistic, and others may take a different view. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A rank of 894 out of 899 would make him sixth from the bottom, not fifth. 899 is first, 898 is second, 897 is third, 896 is fourth, 895 is fifth, and 894 is sixth. Why does everyone get this wrong? 204.77.37.98 ( talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent)In the Naval Academy section it's stated that, "McCain was a rebellious and insubordinate midshipman." The cite is to McCain himself. If such a cite is used, then IMHO either he ought to be quoted directly in the text or footnote (especially since the cite is not available online), and/or the sentence should say something like "McCain described himself...." Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Still ugh. If we do this, why not also do "McCain's discussions with Timberg related the time that he did such-and-such" or "McCain's after-action report stated that he bombed Haiphong". We have to take a stand — we state that these things happened, that these things are true. Do we really think that the things that McCain told Timberg in 1995 are true and that the things McCain first published in Faith in 1999 are not? There's no reason for that belief; no WP:RS has ever suggested it. We do sentence-by-sentence, sometimes clause-by-clause citing in this article, just so everybody can see where everything comes from. There is no reason to further pollute the article with this kind of in-the-text attribution; it's completely redundant. In cases where equivalent statements really are made, I'm willing to swap out McCain cites for biographer/journalist cites, per the FAC request (I haven't gotten to the Vietnam sections yet). In cases where McCain says "negative" things about himself, I'm willing to put the full quote in the footnote, so everyone can see the context. But I'm not willing to do this. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've reverted the Nancy one but added a full context quote in the footnote. I've reverted the disciplined for fighting in school one, as it already has a context quote in the footnote. I've removed "rebellious and insubordinate" and replaced it with something less inflammatory that sets up the subsequent material better without pre-summarizing it; the underlying footnote full quote is still there. You were right about "'undistinguished, but acceptable' academic record" needing an in-text attribution, since it quotes him, but I've streamlined the wording. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a photo taken in December 2006 at the Hanoi Hilton showing McCain's flight suit and flgiht equipment on display. Not the greatest photo in the world but I thought it might be able to be used. Cheers.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 09:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a photo taken of a McCain pic on display at Ho Loa Prison as of December 2006. Maybe be a bit more applicable to this article.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says in a footnote: "McCain would deny reports mentioned in The Boston Globe that some of the affairs were with women who were subordinates under his command. See Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 90–91 and Timberg, An American Odyssey, pp. 123–124."
However, I don't see anything about this at pages 123-124 of Timberg. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have revised the POW section, since several comments from the FAC from a couple of months ago indicated concern about the large number of McCain-written cites that were used here. The POW section is now primarily based upon the two broad, definitive accounts of all the POWs, Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973 (1976) and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 (1999). These treat McCain as just one of many prisoners, and give an overall perspective as to how his POW experience compared to others, the physical condition he was in compared to the others, the role he played in responding to the camp authorities, and so on. While mostly just re-citing has been done, I've also added a few aspects to the coverage, and revised a lot of the wording. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The 2007 pension payment is out of sequence chronologically in this article. The point that you seem to be trying to make (and that is clearly made in your cited source) is that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and that's out of sequence chronologically in this article. If you want to get across the idea that he's still receiving a disability pension, then it's best to try to do so in a current article, such as the one on his 2008 campaign.
Why is it important for readers to understand how much income he received from a pension in 1974, but not important for readers to understand what his salary was from other jobs during the 1970s? You seem to be trying to make the point (as was your cited source) that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and still considers himself disabled. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of fuzzy about how to work in the words tactical bomber into this article. I have no objection to mentioning (repeatedly) that he flew attack aircraft, but it seems like we also ought to be able to briefly mention tactical bombers (as opposed to strategic bombers). If it's not appropriate to mention "tactical bombers" or " tactical bombing" even briefly in this article, why? Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
John McCain crashed 5 Aircrafts during his time in the military; 4 accidental crashes and 1 in combat. Should we add the full detail of his service?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.165.231 ( talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, WTR, here's an excerpt from an interesting article by John F. Dickerson from 28 February 2000 in Time Magazine, titled "McCain's Mother":
After two unsuccessful attempts at eloping--"The car broke down the first time, and I got cold feet the other"--the debutante succeeded in stealing away to Tijuana to marry a young Navy ensign who had been barred from her house for the previous year. Just 19, she brought her college textbooks on her honeymoon. The San Francisco Examiner ran a headline at the time that read SOCIETY COED ELOPES WITH NAVY OFFICER: ROBERTA WRIGHT DEFIES FAMILY. For his part, her husband Jack McCain was punished for being absent without leave....When McCain read an excerpt from a book about her son's time in captivity, she called him, not to empathize but to berate him. In one particularly brutal scene, he heaved bouquets of expletives at his captors. "Johnny, I'm going to come over there and wash your mouth out with soap," she told him. "But Ma Ma, these were bad people," he said. She didn't budge.
Maybe some of this would be good in this article, or the separate article about Roberta McCain? Ferrylodge ( talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on getting this article to featured status. I do have one objection, though. This edit changed "The McCains separated permanently later in 1979" to instead "The McCains separated permanently in January 1980." We discussed this at the talk page for the main article, but I'll summarize briefly.
The cited source for this change is an article in the LA Times, which said that a legal document filed by McCain indicated he and his ex-wife "cohabited as husband and wife" until January 1980. WTR, you have assumed that this means under Florida law that they did not permanently separate before January 1980. This is an unwarranted assumption, unsupported by a reliable source, whereas you deleted three reliable sources that stated otherwise.
The main problem here is that the LA Times has simply quoted a legal document without any explanation for a lay person. The legal meaning of words is often different from the lay meaning, and the meanings can vary from state to state, and even from one statute to another in a single state. One common ground for divorce in many states is "separation without cohabitation" which indicates that many states do not treat the two words as synonymous. Sometimes the word "cohabit" can refer to living under the same roof (even if one spouse is in the basement and one is in the attic), or it can refer to sexual relations.
It's very difficult for me to discern what meaning applies to the January 7, 1980 date mentioned by the LA Times; you'd probably have to consult with a Florida divorce lawyer to get a definite answer. But I am fairly certain that a couple can be separated even though cohabiting. It's not proper for us to simply assume that the word "cohabiting" in a Florida legal document is an antonym of the word "separated".
As in the main article, I have no objection if one of the footnotes here says they legally "cohabited" under Florida law until January 1980. If a reliable source says this means they did not get permanently separated before that date, then we can adjust the article accordingly. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Following are various relevant sources than can be considered here. And please don't get the idea that I enjoy making a huge deal out of this! I'd like it to be over as soon as possible, with minimal fuss, really.
I. Alexander, Paul. Man of the People: "McCain became smitten with Cindy that night....In the coming months, McCain, now separated from Carol, saw Cindy whenever he could…. The couple was divorced on April 2, 1980….’He wanted to have another child, as I recall, but unfortunately Carol’s doctors told him that could never happen….’” (pages 91-92) “The unpublished quote in this paragraph comes from my interview with Carl Smith, June 2002.”(page 379)
II. Kristof, Nicholas. "P.O.W. to Power Broker, A Chapter Most Telling", New York Times ( 2000-02-27). “That separation lasted about two weeks and was not repeated until the final split, said their son Andy, and even close family friends never knew about it. To outsiders, who often visited the McCain household, the marriage seemed as close as ever. ‘They were definitely living together as man and wife when I was there,’ recalled Mr. [Carl] Smith, the former instructor pilot, who moved to Washington and lived with the McCains in their home from about February through May 1979. ‘And there were no signs of strain….For somebody to say that they were separated or at each other's throats is just nonsense,’ Mr. Smith said…. Over the next six months, Mr. McCain pursued Miss Hensley aggressively, flying around the country to see her, and he began to push to end his marriage. Friends say that Carol McCain was in shock. Late that year, the McCains finally separated, and Mrs. McCain accepted a divorce the next February. Mr. McCain promptly married Miss Hensley, his present wife."
III. Langley, Monica. “Preference Aside, Cindy McCain Handles Limelight”, Wall Street Journal ( 2008-04-17): “He said he was four years younger; she said she was three years older. At the time, Sen. McCain was separated from his first wife, with whom he had a daughter.”
IV. Leonard, Mary. “Republican pillars of support”, Boston Globe ( 1999-12-26): “McCain was separated from his first wife and had three children when he met Cindy Hensley, a special-education teacher, at a party in Hawaii.”
V. McCain, John. "Worth the Fighting For” (2002): "I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow….I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."
VI. Romano, Lois. "Out of the Fire, Politics Calls; Ex-POW Turns Washington Insider", Washington Post ( 2000-03-02): "Later that year, McCain and Carol were legally separated; they divorced the following April. McCain has taken responsibility for the break-up, and his former wife has never said a disparaging word about McCain publicly."
VII. Serrano, Richard A.; Vartabedian, Ralph. "McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship", Los Angeles Times ( 2008-07-11): “In his 2002 memoir, ‘Worth the Fighting For,’ McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley. ’I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,’ McCain wrote. ‘I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.’ An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had 'cohabited' until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley. Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife…. Carol McCain later told friends, including Reynolds and Fitzwater, that she did not know he was seeing anyone else. John McCain sued for divorce in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., where his friend and fellow former POW, George E. ‘Bud’ Day, practiced law and could represent him. In the petition, he stated that the couple had ‘cohabited as husband and wife’ until Jan. 7, 1980.”
VIII. Timberg, Robert. “An American Odyssey” (2007 printing): “When he [Lakeland] turned back, he spotted McCain across the room introducing himself to an attractive young blond woman. Lakeland was surprised. He knew that McCain, by then separated from Carol….” (page 134) “they were legally separated in January 1980 and divorced a month later.” (page 139)
Miscellaneous other relevant outside info (not necessarily adequate for insertion into article):
A. Abrams, Brenda. " Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida", page 14 (2003): "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom."
B. Wiktionary definition of “cohabit”:
C. Wiktionary definition of “separated”:
D. Random online discussion at Answerbag about separated couples who remain under one roof.
E. “Black’s Law Dictionary” definition of “cohabitation”: “To live together as husband and wife. The mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual relations.”
F. “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary” on cohabitation: “The law presumes that husband and wife cohabit, even after a voluntary separation has taken place between them; but where there has been a divorce a mensa et thoro, or a sentence of separation, the presumption then arises that they have obeyed the sentence or decree, and do not live together.”
G. Google search results for " separation without cohabitation." (558 hits) Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to go around on this again; regarding separation, we don't know more than we know. All of the sources conflict to some degree, and we don't know what any of them, or the people they interviewed, exactly meant by the term. The LAT finding is something real, however, and should be used. But I was in error to phrase the LAT finding in terms of separation; the article is careful to just stick to the 'cohabiting' language, and so should we. I've changed that in the current text, in addition to modified 'sued for divorce' for 'filed for divorce' ('sued' sounded unduly harsh or legalistic or something). So we now have in the article:
I propose we go with this. (It's very similar to what we had before the LAT story came out, except that we've replaced "separated permanently later in 1979;[57][16][184]" with the "stopped cohabiting in January 1980;[184]". Hopefully, this whole story will become clearer from subsequent press stories or biographies down the road, we can adjust then accordingly. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've put this last piece in, as requested. I've replicated the same language into Carol McCain. I've also replicated it into Cindy Hensley McCain, since it was covering the same points. Whether that article needs to go into as much detail as it does about the McCain first marriage is a good question that I'm not sure of the answer to, but one that should be discussed there. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't fifth from the bottom be 895 out of 899? Xboxandhalo2 ( talk) 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
WaPo is on it. 69.183.187.206 ( talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any existing footage of McCain's defiance during the Christmas service of 1968? The references describe lots of foreign media and how he'd swear every time the camera came on him. I think that would make a great addition to the wiki library. LegalFiction ( talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to discuss this here, so here it goes. There is a great number of material available by a great number of reliable sources that have another version of some of the events... in many ways it came from John McCain himself. I think this material should be mentioned or at least that there are some conflicting opinion in regards to what happened. Here are some links.. if someone want please read through it, I am not that familiar with wikipedia so someone more familiar maybe can go through the stuff and make a suggestion. I do understand that the main opinion should be predominant, but in the interest of presenting a complete picture that might surface in the election in the future, I think it is ok to mention conflicting opinions and contradictions. Here are a number of sources/links. Some links seem less believable others are very.. but I feel some mention of the very large number of materials should be made. Here are teh link, look forward to a discussion between people who've gone through it all... hopefully we can keep this non political.. nailed to the facts. www.infowarscom/?p=109 unreliable fringe source? http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513224/My-years-hell-John-McCain-recalls-life-prisoner-war-Vietnam.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/17/in-1992-pows-accused-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html www.prisonplanetcom/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm unreliable fringe source? http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html many more links to be found by googling "songbird mccain"
Lots of real people real sources.. including video interviews.. anyway I find it warrants a small mention on McCain that there are contradictions or that some of the events are questioned... obviously I believe it should be very small, since f.e. other military heroes like john kerry.. the controversies were mentioned there as well / still are, so in order to paint a full and neutral picture I would suggest to make a small mention as well maybe even provide a few links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok I would keep it rather low key. I am not an experienced Wikipedia user / and also a foreign national so my English skills are not that great. I would write something like (Title: Controversy regarding torture account): There is some controversy in regards to John McCain's account while being imprisoned alleging that he divulged crucial military information such as packing routes in return for better medical treatment. Also the account of severe torture has been called into question by fellow POWs and former Vietnamese guards who claim that no torture has happened, and that his vietnamese nickname as a result of his cooperation was "Songbird".
Then I would post provide a reference link to one or more of the sources I have listed - however I'd need some help with that since I am not too familiar as to what constitutes a valid source for wikipedia of the sources I listed. Also My suggestion is a bit long.. it likely can be shortened more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well when you read up on the sources, there are a lot of people out there, that where at the same location and at the same time. There's video evidence of fellow POW, established newspapers, sources and most importantly McCain's own interviews right after captivity that are enough room to mention this controversy, the same way it is mentioned on Ref. Jackson, John Kerry, Clinton, George Bush - and I believe that the sources and indicators are at least as believable as those for the ones mentioned. I am sure as the election moves forward these things will be developped and researched, the same way they were with Kerry. Making a small mention of that fact would allow to update the developments in that area. I find Wikipedia should present a clear balanced view of a candidate and not just a PR profile. Doing that makes all the information listed much more credible. If you find that the listed information is not valid, please provide sources and references that invalidate the evidence provided. Also your cited fringe theory states that it can be considered if it has been referenced extensively and in a serious manner. If you follow the links I believe it works. If you google songbird and mccain you find 290,000 hits.. I find this warrants to mention this controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
See the discussion above " Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#POW section revised" where the propaganda tape he made that was broadcast to US troops in South Vietnam is documented and discussed. His making of the tapes and their broadcast is briefly mentioned in the article. Generally things on the blogosphere, such as the claimed "Songbird" nickname, are not admissible based on being blogged about. The Washington Post initial article, on the broadcast of the tape he recorded was reportedly run June 5, 1969 under the headline "Reds Say PW Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral."[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39892], so that is where the "songbird" claim might have started Elevation from blogosphere to mainstream news by a reporter's question at a press conference has happened with anti-Obama rumors. Interestingly, neither the actual recordings made by the US government and submitted to voice analysis to confirm it was McCain in 1969, nor the source recordings made by the North Vietnamese, have surfaced, and all we know about them is a couple of phrases from a UPI report from 1969. Nor have I seen US personnel who served in Vietnam quoted as saying they remember hearing the broadcast (other than in the blogosphere). If one of them was interviewed by a mainstream publication and talked about it as his personal knowledge and experience, rather than a rumor, that might be admissable.As an example, the Phoenix New Times ref listed above quotes two identified officers, "two former POWs who say they were senior officers at a camp where McCain claims to have been tortured tell New Times they knew of no such torture during that time at that camp" and say they doubt he was tortured at that camp as he claims. This stands above most of the rumor-mongering by angry members of the POW/MIA movement. McCain's own (ghostwritten by Salter) books about his experiences in captivity cannot be taken as unquestionable truth. On the other hand, material like the "Prisonplanet" ref, where a named individual claims numerous unnamed individuals have told him about McCain making "32 propaganda tapes" to get special treatment do not rise tho the level of credibility to be included. Mainstream press articles saying that many in the POW?MIA movement are angry at him and that they circulate claims of special treatment could be included in an article about his later Senate career, because angry voters are a political fact, regardless of the truth of their claims, just as it is a fact that the Swiftboaters said bad things about Kerry. Edison ( talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing I find odd... if this is really true 5 years of torture and the entire story about him, WHY, WHY did mccain ONLY receive a Silver Star - it does not really make sense. I am sure back then they had more information... but reading the official line.. only a Silver Star the THIRD HIGHEST Decoration.. When reading his story most think Medal of Honor.. I find that a bit odd... especially considering his family was so famous in the military - which one might think would boost awards a little too... but only a Silver Star..... hmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC) comment 3 in this post is interesting as well http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/23/mccain-vet-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply at greater length tonight when I have time, but the short answer to all this is that the current article includes everything that we have WP:RS for, including those times that McCain "talked". The rest of the claims above are unsupported by WP:RS, including the "Songbird" name. Note that the current article relies very little on McCain's own writing, and instead relies upon the standard accounts of all the American POWs. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Arzel, Ferrylodge, and Edison have all made good points here. The fact that there is a lot of junk on the web about McCain's time as a POW doesn't make any of it true, or any of these motley sites WP:RS. The Tran Trong Duyet statement is the official Vietnamese line — nobody was tortured, which lacks credibility and says nothing in particular about McCain. The statements of POW/MIA live prisoner advocates like Ted Sampley and (from 1991 on, not before) Ted Guy are badly colored by their hatred of McCain's position on that issue, and Guy's claims about "the Plantation" are refuted by Rochester & Kiley's book. The Silver Star medal level for McCain is appropriate — other POWs were tortured much longer and much worse than McCain, a fact McCain readily stresses in his book, and/or were higher in the prisoner command structure. So for example James Stockdale and Bud Day both received the Medal of Honor (and both were/are McCain supporters). Mention of the POW/MIA activist charges against McCain as a fraud, traitor, or "Manchurian Candidate" is mentioned in our articles House_and_Senate_career_of_John_McCain,_1982–1999#Vietnam_redux and John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#South_Carolina, where it became a factor in his political career. But none of this merits inclusion here, because none of it is supported by WP:RS and none of these allegations were made about McCain in the timeframe of this article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the Phoenix New Times article. There are several problems with it. First, the Phoenix New Times and Amy Silverman, the author of the piece, are both somewhat marginal as WP:RS. It's an alternative weekly, and they have had a consistent anti-McCain agenda, somewhat similar to the Village Voice and Rudy Giuliani. Most of the people interviewed in the piece are all worked up over the POW/MIA live prisoners issue, and thus hate McCain for what happened regarding that issue before, during and after the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs hearings. This colors everything they say about McCain's time as a POW; basically, they're trying to retrofit McCain's POW history to "explain" his negative stance regarding live prisoners. As for what Ted Guy and Swede Larson say, yes that's obviously the most serious claim in the piece:
While it's true 'the Plantation' was a different kind of camp, and that physical hammering of prisoners was not as frequent there (psychological pressure was preferred), Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, which covers the entire American Vietnam POW experience and interviewed hundreds of former POWs, states that a number of POWs were physically mistreated there, among them McCain. See pp. 340, 363, 364, 487; this is covered by current footnote 108 in the article. It's possible that Guy and Larson didn't know about what was happening with some of the other POWs there, as McCain and others were in solitary, and at all times before "Camp Unity" began later in Hoa Lo, communication was spotty and chain of command was difficult to establish and maintain. Or it's possible Guy and Larson's statement was colored by their own views; Guy did a 180 degree turn on the live prisoners issue in 1991 (see [8]) and I believe Larson went with him. In any case, given all the WP:RS we have to indicate McCain was tortured, I don't think this one claim against that merits inclusion. As one of our WP guidelines says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this doesn't qualify. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph discussing the fire on the aircraft carrier doesn't mention the fact that McCain's reckless "wet start" caused the entire incident. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/35321150/navy-releases-mccains-records. Why isn't this something that gets more attention?~~ Quigonpaj ( talk) 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope we can move this discussion from the main John McCain article to here. That article merely summarizes this one. Tvoz wrote:
"Eager to marry Cindy, McCain urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce", or words to that effect, is what you mean, I think - "pushed for a divorce" is an imprecise idiom whether the New York Times used it or not. "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland, he said." [9] would be a reasonable source for "extramarital". I might be ok with something like "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " - would have to see it in context. I am not insisting on anything, Ferrylodge, and I didn;t say this article was poorly written. I am raising an issue about this section which I believe is oddly worded in a way that could be construed as trying to sanitize the biography, regardless of its status. And by the way, the cultural image section also seems to be worded in a way that takes presumably negative items and turns them into positives, an example being his well-sourced temper. Another example of a questionable item is his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages" - I believe this is a true and sourced item that is fair to include, but you've left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half. That also can be construed as sanitizing. I am well aware of the lengthy debate that went on previously on this talk page about some of this, and I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about it, having had that pleasure in the past. But I am registering an objection here to euphemism and sanitizing. Perhaps other editors have opinions on this - I'm going to step back for a moment and see, and hope you will too. Finally, I specifically said that removing your FA nomination is irrelevant, so please stop holding that out as a threat. The only thing that will accomplish is it will reduce the number of uninvolved editors who come to this article and talk page to review it, some of whom might share the concerns that I and others have expressed about this. I hope that's not why you're saying you'll remove the nom. Tvoz
WTR responded:
Tvoz has a good point about being given a weekend together to spend at a summer home; I think that would be allowable as evidence of adultery in a divorce proceeding (it's New York, not Virginia or Florida, but see this for "the plaintiff can imply guilt through indirect or circumstantial evidence so long as it leads the reasonable observer to conclude that the parties were inclined toward adulterous acts and the opportunity existed"). Wasted Time R
I went ahead and changed the "pushed" language in the main article to something like Tvoz's suggested "urged" language. This seems like an improvement, since it no longer connotes pushing and shoving. I plan to respond to the other points raised, imminently. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I would suggest that we take one issue at a time. Things would be much simpler that way, and we would have a higher likelihood of success, since we could all focus on the same things.
Tvoz has made some good suggestions that led me to modify the main article. For example, we clarified that the divorce was uncontested. We also removed the possible implication that there was physical pushing between John McCain and his first wife. Both of these are improvements, and I hope you realize that there was no intent on my part to make John McCain look bad. Likewise, I deny trying to "sanitize" the article to make McCain look good, with regard to the other points Tvoz has mentioned.
Here's what the present article says about the pre-marital relationship of John and Cindy:
In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179] A relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[186] John McCain pushed to end the marriage,[58] and the McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980.[187] John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at that time;[58] the uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[187]
Let's start with the matter of the bare word "relationship." I don't think anyone is happy with this bare word, because it kind of begs for an adjective. As I've said, adding the word "extramarital" doesn't cut it for me, because it connotes or denotes sex, and we don't have a reliable source for that. [10] Assuming that there was sex because they spent a weekend together may not be unreasonable, but it's still original research without a reliable source that draws that conclusion. The source cited by Tvoz (LA Times) says: "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland...." Nothing here about which bases were reached. :-)
Tvoz, you suggest you might be happy with "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " That's better, IMHO, but it still doesn't get rid of the bare word "relationship" which everyone seems to dislike. Perhaps the word "dating" which the LA Times used ("As the pair began dating")? I'm also concerned that we may be over-emphasizing that he was still married to Carol, given that the very next sentence already conveys that information. Repeating stuff unnecessarily is just as conducive to undue weight as bolding it or putting it in ALLCAPS, in my view. How about:
In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179]
A relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[186]They began dating, travelling between Arizona and Washington to see each other,[186] and John McCain urged his wife Carol to accept a divorce.John McCain pushed to end the marriage,[58] and theThe McCains stopped cohabiting in January1980.[187]1980, and John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at thattime; the[58]time.[58] The uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[187]
How's that? Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As I was reading the article I came across a single line about a guard showing McCain leniency and later drawing a cross in the dirt. I thought the story was very moving and there should be more in the article about it than a single sentence. When I followed the sources listed in the article I actually found some of them had different versions of the story. Some googling turned up several different versions of the story. I understand the only account we have of McCain's time as a POW is his own, but there seems to be some inconsistency in this particular tale.
In the latest version, from the Saddleback Forum, McCain says the ropes were loosened (and then re-tightened), and the guard later drew a cross in the dirt to show his religious beliefs. [11]
In the oldest version of the story (oldest I could find anyway, 1979), he says "the only real human being that I ever met over there", untied him completely and let him lay down for several hours, and there's no reference to the cross in this version. This is from U.S. News in May 1973. [12]
In his 2000 campaign he would tell the same story as the one from Saddleback, but with an unnamed POW instead of himself. Such a telling is actually already sited in the article. [13]
The only source we have to the latest version of the cross story is McCain himself, and a friend who "vaguely" remembers McCain telling him that story before. No wonder it's only "vaguely" remembered, the story is a little different each time. McCain is 71 now, and add to that this was 40 years ago, he might not be remembering the event correctly after all this time. Which version of the story should we use? The latest? The earliest? One in between? Should it just be removed?
What is the appropriate thing to do?
Dirus ( talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something else. I was hoping to avoid anything that might sound politically partisan, but John McCain is a politician, so this is something else to consider. When looking at the dates you can see that prior to his first presidential run, this story never had a cross in it. Could this part be made up for political reasons? ie, connecting with the religious right. Dirus ( talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(od) History of the story: The 1973 USN&WR piece by McCain was written soon after his return, didn't include everything that happened to him, and often focused on other POWs (since this was the first extended account of the POW experience that was being written up). Between that account and Robert Timberg's 1995 The Nightingale's Song, McCain didn't publish or talk in detail in public much about his POW experience at all. The Timberg book included a fairly detailed account of McCain's POW experience, but still not everything since the book was about five different Naval Academy graduates, not just McCain. Then after the Timberg book was well-received, McCain and Salter published Faith of My Fathers in 1999 and included the cross in the dirt story. In Faith of My Fathers it is a minor aside, told out of chronological sequence and taking up less than a page of the over 150 pages devoted to the POW experience. One of his first uses of the cross in the dirt story is in this famous Virginia Beach speech during his 2000 presidential campaign (the one where he flays the hides of Falwell and Robertson); it's told in third person for dramatic/poetic effect. During McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, he was telling the story frequently. An ad was made using it, that took artistic license and changed the sandal to a stick. But the story as told by McCain has not changed. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we have? When I was writing this article, months before Saddleback and bloggers latching onto this question, I tried to figure out when the cross in the dirt story happened, but couldn't, since McCain doesn't pin it down in Faith or his speeches. (I'm not at all convinced that the May 1969 reference in the USN&WR story is the same thing.) I so indicated in the footnote here that when it happened was unclear. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; McCain's POW experience lasted over five years, and other POWs' longer, and they didn't have any way of writing things down; every account has been reconstructed from memory. There are bound to be errors in memory and inconsistencies among different POWs, something the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley books deal with in presenting a coherent narrative. I find the blogger logic that "if he didn't tell this important story in the 1973 account when he could have, it must not have happened" utterly bogus. It's not an important story in the context of the POW experience. The "Faith" in Faith of My Fathers is not about Christianity or crosses or kind guards. It's about how the POWs survived an endless succession of mean, cruel, sadistic guards and prison officials, often in solitary confinement, often after they had already been broken and forced to make anti-American statements. The "Faith" centers around loyalty to fellow POWs, to the U.S. military Code of Conduct, to the American ideal of freedom, to (in McCain's case) the Naval tradition of his father and grandfather, to patriotism. Yes there was a religious element too, but all these other things were just as or more important. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, as an aside, let me correct the original poster's notion that "I understand the only account we have of McCain's time as a POW is his own." Not true at all. We use the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley accounts, which piece together what McCain has said with what other POWs he interacted with have said. If you look in the citations in this article, the vast majority of cites for this period are from non-McCain sources. And the most famous McCain event of them all – his refusal to accept out-of-order early release – was corroborated at the time by the North Vietnamese government. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was such a hot topic. Have their been validations from these bloggers, edit-and-runs? I did leave the stick thing out as that did seem a bit much to nitpick over. I had seen something about it when googling, but I didn't find any original sources saying stick, so I didn't mention it. I guess I missed the ad. I also avoided some other talk I had found about McCain stealing the story from an author. Let me see if I can find that again. Someone named Solzhenitsyn. Supposedly he has the same story or a very similar story, and is someone who McCain wrote an article praising in The Sun. [21] This also didn't seem like a big deal to me, even if it turns out the story is the same, that doesn't mean he stole it. In fact, it might be the reason he likes the author, because he can connect with him.
I hadn't thought about him talking in the third person. I guess that's what threw me. Usually when talking in the 3rd person, politicians, such as Bob Dole, say their name. "Bob Dole likes babies!" "Bob Dole will be a great president!" This isn't that sort of third person, but a more removed 3rd person. He says "a scared American prisoner of war." That said, it does fit reading it in the 3rd person. It's probably one of those things you pick up on easier when listening than when reading.
Also, I did figure some stuff was corroborated. I just wanted to avoid flames from people who might say, "well who else are you going to ask?" I wasn't trying to pick a fight, as far as this particular story goes, he is the only source. If so much of it is corroborated though, this brings up another angle you might be missing. If McCain is the only source for this story, it might look fishy with most everything else being corroborated. Perhaps it can be worded slightly different to express this. That might calm all the bloggers you say are mad at this article.
The Huffington Post is not generally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. See here and here. The following guidance should be helpful:
According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[1] However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Wikipedia editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog. If the article can only be accessed through the blog, perhaps the editor should explain in the citations where the article is from and state that the Post is only hosting it.
We might be able to get away with mentioning a Huffington Post blog entry in a footnote, but certainly not in the main text. On the other hand, we can write the main text in an equivocal manner, to reflect that the matter is not entirely settled (e.g. McCain "reportedly" was advuised he might become an admiral). Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I just saw a 2 hour CNN TV show about Obama and McCain.
There were several minutes devoted to the Forrestal incident with a mention that McCain was injured sufficiently to qualify for reassignment outside the combat zone but that he volunteered for assignment on a ship with a pilot shortage.
Help with finding a reference? Fwlok ( talk) 15:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Does anyone know whether the Panama Canal Zone was "leased" from Panama? That was asserted here. Note that the citizenship issue is mentioned in footnote 2 of this article. Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) and Crewdson, John (2008-02-18).
"John McCain's birthright: Fit for the presidency". The Swamp. Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-02-21. {{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)"(undent)The article has just been edited to say that McCain was "born in Panama." [1] It does appear that the Canal Zone was "in Panama" rather than "part of the U.S." However, this seems like a very technical point, and I'm not sure why it's important for this article to report this very technical fact. The treaty said:
“ | The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article II of this agreement, and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article II which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority....As the price or compensation for the rights, powers and privileges granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States, the Government of the United States agrees to pay to the Republic of Panama the sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in gold coin of the United States on the exchange of the ratification of this convention and also an annual payment during the life of this convention of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in like gold coin, beginning nine years after the date aforesaid. | ” |
So, it does look like the PCZ technically remained part of Panama. But inclusion of this technical fact seems to be a back-door way of attacking McCain's eligibility for President; the notability of this fact is entirely related to the presidency. So, I would be more comfortable if this fact would instead be recited in the article on McCain's 2008 campaign, rather than here. It basically seems like trivia in the context of this article. On the other hand, I can see why it might be appropriate to mention what country a person was born in, as a routine part of any Wikipedia biography. So, I have mixed feelings. Incidentally, even if he was technically born in a foreign country, the fact remains that both of his parents were citizens, which has always been the strongest argument for his presidential eligibility. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning the country of birth first isn't really the standard way of writing it out, so that unfairly draws attention to the country. I've changed the order to the more standard "city, state, country" format. -- 24.57.151.98 ( talk) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found some issues in the main article that seem to be repeated here. Please see Talk:John McCain#Imbalance and cherry picking, and I suggest a thorough review of the way the sources are used here. Having reviewed a few more since that example, I'm not sure a POV tag isn't needed on both articles, but I hope those with more time will review more closely. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I share the scepticism of the claim that McCain is descended from Robert the Bruce, but maybe someone could clarify this claim. Does he say which of Bruce's immediate descendants he is descended from? If not, his claim is extremely dubious. I gather from the Guardian article that he claims to come from the Clan Lamont, from people who were driven out during the civil war period. However looking at this clan's website (a link from this article) they did have a turbulent history during the civil war, but there is no claim that the chiefs of this relatively minor clan had royal ancestry. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article is wrong. No one ever claimed McCain descends from Robert the Bruce, but his grand-aunt does seem to. Also, McCain seems to descend from Edward I, and from earlier Scottish monarchs. Far from genealogists agreeing with the Guardian article, they all disagree with it (just look at soc.genealogy.medieval). See my roundup of links here, which includes a link to the full descent of McCain's grandaunt from Robert the Bruce: http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.mccain.html The "John McCain and Robert the Bruce" controversy] MarkHumphrysIreland ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If there is any further discussion about this, here are the facts, for the record: Professional genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner has traced a descent of McCain from Edward I, King of England, and hence from Malcolm III, King of Scotland, and from Charlemagne. [2] Professional genealogist Will Johnson has traced a descent of McCain's grand-aunt Mary Louise Earle from Robert III, King of Scotland, and hence from Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, and from Charlemagne. [3] I wouldn't cite the Guardian article at all. There is no intellectual content in it. MarkHumphrysIreland ( talk) 13:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WTR, you should sigificantly beef up the lead, per WP:LEAD (stand-alone summary of all highpoints of the article, should leave the reader satisfied if the reader goes no further); it's currently a bit skimpy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the lead, I left it intentionally light because this is a subarticle, that most readers will have gotten to via links from the main article. I don't want to regurgitate the summary material that they already read there, here; if they clicked that link, it means they are interested in more detail, so I want to get right to that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The lead is much better now, although I corrected it to conform with article naming, bolding and linking per WP:LEAD. [5]
I remain concerned about the cherrypicking of negative content highlighted above in FerryLodge's post; I don't have time to read the entire article today, so perhaps that has already been dealt with? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Another note, section headings could use some work (which might impact article organization). This heading is very long and mixes too many topics:
and while it refers to marriage and children, it's under a heading about his military career. Later on, we find another reference to a marriage under his military career, so there's mixture of career and personal, but all under the heading of military career. I'm not sure how to quickly/easily sort this out, so some reorganization and rationalization of section headings may be needed. The organization of Ronald Reagan might lend some ideas. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just saw Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present in the infobox. It should be moved to Senate career of John McCain (see WP:MOSDATE regarding avoiding use of "to present" which becomes dated). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, on the "cite news" template, I prefer to use publisher=''[[whatever]]'' for newspapers and publisher=[[whatever2]] for wire services, broadcast organizations, etc., because then I can be consistent on using the same parameter. I reserve work= for things like specific programs on a broadcast network. It also allows me to do mixtures, like publisher=[[Associated Press]] for ''[[The New York Times]]''. The inconsistency between one parameter getting automatically italicized and the other not is an annoyance of Template:Cite news, one that I tried to pursue at Template talk:Cite news but didn't get far on. Anyway, since you I know you don't like the cite templates to begin with, I hope you'll give me leeway to do it my way. As long as I'm consistent throughout the article, I don't see a problem. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says that, "while at St. Stephen's he began to develop an unruly, defiant streak." The cite is to an article by John Arundel, which in turn cites to Timberg. Why not cite directly to Timberg? Also, Timberg wrote that McCain had a "defiant, unruly streak" but perhaps we should do more to put this in our own words than just reverse the words "defiant" and "unruly." Moreover, Timberg goes on to explain that McCain “mocked the school's dress code by wearing blue jeans with his coat and tie." This seems to be the kind of thing that Timberg considers to be "defiant" and "unruly" but I suspect that many Wikipedia readers might not be so severe. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article also says that most of the students at the Episcopal School were children of "wealthy Southerners", and the cite is to Alexander's Man of the People. [6] But I didn't notice Alexander say anything about "wealthy." Alexander quotes one of McCain's classmates as saying that their dormitory "hadn't been renovated" since the Civil War, and "There were cockroaches in there. One day they swarmed in and you couldn't see the floor. The curtained alcoves we slept in were like the pictures you see of hospitals in the Civil War." Maybe wealthy parents wanted their kids to experience poverty. Anyway, where does it say that the parents were wealthy? McCain probably didn't get a glimpse of the wealthy life by living in such conditions. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In places where he's cited blasting himself, I think some mitigating stuff he said should be in the next (or previous sentence) instead of substantially later in the article (e.g. later in the article it's mentioned that "Despite his difficulties, McCain later wrote that he never defamed the more compelling traditions of the Academy – those involving courage, resilience, honor, and sacrifice for one's country"). Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)There's a similar issue with the class rank. The article says, "His classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities[34] and thought his low grades were by inclination and not ability. His class rank was further lowered by his poor grades for conduct and leadership, which reflected his sloppy appearance, rebellious attitude, and poor relations with his company officer." But then it's in the next paragraph (several sentences later) where it's stated that "he was fifth from the bottom in class rank,[38] 894th out of 899." Just stylistically, I'd prefer these closely related things to be right next to each other, in the same way that I suggested McCain's self-deprecations ought to be next to his self-congratulation. But this is stylistic, and others may take a different view. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A rank of 894 out of 899 would make him sixth from the bottom, not fifth. 899 is first, 898 is second, 897 is third, 896 is fourth, 895 is fifth, and 894 is sixth. Why does everyone get this wrong? 204.77.37.98 ( talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent)In the Naval Academy section it's stated that, "McCain was a rebellious and insubordinate midshipman." The cite is to McCain himself. If such a cite is used, then IMHO either he ought to be quoted directly in the text or footnote (especially since the cite is not available online), and/or the sentence should say something like "McCain described himself...." Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Still ugh. If we do this, why not also do "McCain's discussions with Timberg related the time that he did such-and-such" or "McCain's after-action report stated that he bombed Haiphong". We have to take a stand — we state that these things happened, that these things are true. Do we really think that the things that McCain told Timberg in 1995 are true and that the things McCain first published in Faith in 1999 are not? There's no reason for that belief; no WP:RS has ever suggested it. We do sentence-by-sentence, sometimes clause-by-clause citing in this article, just so everybody can see where everything comes from. There is no reason to further pollute the article with this kind of in-the-text attribution; it's completely redundant. In cases where equivalent statements really are made, I'm willing to swap out McCain cites for biographer/journalist cites, per the FAC request (I haven't gotten to the Vietnam sections yet). In cases where McCain says "negative" things about himself, I'm willing to put the full quote in the footnote, so everyone can see the context. But I'm not willing to do this. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've reverted the Nancy one but added a full context quote in the footnote. I've reverted the disciplined for fighting in school one, as it already has a context quote in the footnote. I've removed "rebellious and insubordinate" and replaced it with something less inflammatory that sets up the subsequent material better without pre-summarizing it; the underlying footnote full quote is still there. You were right about "'undistinguished, but acceptable' academic record" needing an in-text attribution, since it quotes him, but I've streamlined the wording. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a photo taken in December 2006 at the Hanoi Hilton showing McCain's flight suit and flgiht equipment on display. Not the greatest photo in the world but I thought it might be able to be used. Cheers.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 09:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a photo taken of a McCain pic on display at Ho Loa Prison as of December 2006. Maybe be a bit more applicable to this article.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says in a footnote: "McCain would deny reports mentioned in The Boston Globe that some of the affairs were with women who were subordinates under his command. See Alexander, Man of the People, pp. 90–91 and Timberg, An American Odyssey, pp. 123–124."
However, I don't see anything about this at pages 123-124 of Timberg. Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have revised the POW section, since several comments from the FAC from a couple of months ago indicated concern about the large number of McCain-written cites that were used here. The POW section is now primarily based upon the two broad, definitive accounts of all the POWs, Hubbell's P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-Of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964–1973 (1976) and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 (1999). These treat McCain as just one of many prisoners, and give an overall perspective as to how his POW experience compared to others, the physical condition he was in compared to the others, the role he played in responding to the camp authorities, and so on. While mostly just re-citing has been done, I've also added a few aspects to the coverage, and revised a lot of the wording. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The 2007 pension payment is out of sequence chronologically in this article. The point that you seem to be trying to make (and that is clearly made in your cited source) is that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and that's out of sequence chronologically in this article. If you want to get across the idea that he's still receiving a disability pension, then it's best to try to do so in a current article, such as the one on his 2008 campaign.
Why is it important for readers to understand how much income he received from a pension in 1974, but not important for readers to understand what his salary was from other jobs during the 1970s? You seem to be trying to make the point (as was your cited source) that McCain is still receiving a disability pension, and still considers himself disabled. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of fuzzy about how to work in the words tactical bomber into this article. I have no objection to mentioning (repeatedly) that he flew attack aircraft, but it seems like we also ought to be able to briefly mention tactical bombers (as opposed to strategic bombers). If it's not appropriate to mention "tactical bombers" or " tactical bombing" even briefly in this article, why? Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
John McCain crashed 5 Aircrafts during his time in the military; 4 accidental crashes and 1 in combat. Should we add the full detail of his service?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.165.231 ( talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, WTR, here's an excerpt from an interesting article by John F. Dickerson from 28 February 2000 in Time Magazine, titled "McCain's Mother":
After two unsuccessful attempts at eloping--"The car broke down the first time, and I got cold feet the other"--the debutante succeeded in stealing away to Tijuana to marry a young Navy ensign who had been barred from her house for the previous year. Just 19, she brought her college textbooks on her honeymoon. The San Francisco Examiner ran a headline at the time that read SOCIETY COED ELOPES WITH NAVY OFFICER: ROBERTA WRIGHT DEFIES FAMILY. For his part, her husband Jack McCain was punished for being absent without leave....When McCain read an excerpt from a book about her son's time in captivity, she called him, not to empathize but to berate him. In one particularly brutal scene, he heaved bouquets of expletives at his captors. "Johnny, I'm going to come over there and wash your mouth out with soap," she told him. "But Ma Ma, these were bad people," he said. She didn't budge.
Maybe some of this would be good in this article, or the separate article about Roberta McCain? Ferrylodge ( talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on getting this article to featured status. I do have one objection, though. This edit changed "The McCains separated permanently later in 1979" to instead "The McCains separated permanently in January 1980." We discussed this at the talk page for the main article, but I'll summarize briefly.
The cited source for this change is an article in the LA Times, which said that a legal document filed by McCain indicated he and his ex-wife "cohabited as husband and wife" until January 1980. WTR, you have assumed that this means under Florida law that they did not permanently separate before January 1980. This is an unwarranted assumption, unsupported by a reliable source, whereas you deleted three reliable sources that stated otherwise.
The main problem here is that the LA Times has simply quoted a legal document without any explanation for a lay person. The legal meaning of words is often different from the lay meaning, and the meanings can vary from state to state, and even from one statute to another in a single state. One common ground for divorce in many states is "separation without cohabitation" which indicates that many states do not treat the two words as synonymous. Sometimes the word "cohabit" can refer to living under the same roof (even if one spouse is in the basement and one is in the attic), or it can refer to sexual relations.
It's very difficult for me to discern what meaning applies to the January 7, 1980 date mentioned by the LA Times; you'd probably have to consult with a Florida divorce lawyer to get a definite answer. But I am fairly certain that a couple can be separated even though cohabiting. It's not proper for us to simply assume that the word "cohabiting" in a Florida legal document is an antonym of the word "separated".
As in the main article, I have no objection if one of the footnotes here says they legally "cohabited" under Florida law until January 1980. If a reliable source says this means they did not get permanently separated before that date, then we can adjust the article accordingly. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Following are various relevant sources than can be considered here. And please don't get the idea that I enjoy making a huge deal out of this! I'd like it to be over as soon as possible, with minimal fuss, really.
I. Alexander, Paul. Man of the People: "McCain became smitten with Cindy that night....In the coming months, McCain, now separated from Carol, saw Cindy whenever he could…. The couple was divorced on April 2, 1980….’He wanted to have another child, as I recall, but unfortunately Carol’s doctors told him that could never happen….’” (pages 91-92) “The unpublished quote in this paragraph comes from my interview with Carl Smith, June 2002.”(page 379)
II. Kristof, Nicholas. "P.O.W. to Power Broker, A Chapter Most Telling", New York Times ( 2000-02-27). “That separation lasted about two weeks and was not repeated until the final split, said their son Andy, and even close family friends never knew about it. To outsiders, who often visited the McCain household, the marriage seemed as close as ever. ‘They were definitely living together as man and wife when I was there,’ recalled Mr. [Carl] Smith, the former instructor pilot, who moved to Washington and lived with the McCains in their home from about February through May 1979. ‘And there were no signs of strain….For somebody to say that they were separated or at each other's throats is just nonsense,’ Mr. Smith said…. Over the next six months, Mr. McCain pursued Miss Hensley aggressively, flying around the country to see her, and he began to push to end his marriage. Friends say that Carol McCain was in shock. Late that year, the McCains finally separated, and Mrs. McCain accepted a divorce the next February. Mr. McCain promptly married Miss Hensley, his present wife."
III. Langley, Monica. “Preference Aside, Cindy McCain Handles Limelight”, Wall Street Journal ( 2008-04-17): “He said he was four years younger; she said she was three years older. At the time, Sen. McCain was separated from his first wife, with whom he had a daughter.”
IV. Leonard, Mary. “Republican pillars of support”, Boston Globe ( 1999-12-26): “McCain was separated from his first wife and had three children when he met Cindy Hensley, a special-education teacher, at a party in Hawaii.”
V. McCain, John. "Worth the Fighting For” (2002): "I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow….I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."
VI. Romano, Lois. "Out of the Fire, Politics Calls; Ex-POW Turns Washington Insider", Washington Post ( 2000-03-02): "Later that year, McCain and Carol were legally separated; they divorced the following April. McCain has taken responsibility for the break-up, and his former wife has never said a disparaging word about McCain publicly."
VII. Serrano, Richard A.; Vartabedian, Ralph. "McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship", Los Angeles Times ( 2008-07-11): “In his 2002 memoir, ‘Worth the Fighting For,’ McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley. ’I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,’ McCain wrote. ‘I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.’ An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had 'cohabited' until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley. Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife…. Carol McCain later told friends, including Reynolds and Fitzwater, that she did not know he was seeing anyone else. John McCain sued for divorce in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., where his friend and fellow former POW, George E. ‘Bud’ Day, practiced law and could represent him. In the petition, he stated that the couple had ‘cohabited as husband and wife’ until Jan. 7, 1980.”
VIII. Timberg, Robert. “An American Odyssey” (2007 printing): “When he [Lakeland] turned back, he spotted McCain across the room introducing himself to an attractive young blond woman. Lakeland was surprised. He knew that McCain, by then separated from Carol….” (page 134) “they were legally separated in January 1980 and divorced a month later.” (page 139)
Miscellaneous other relevant outside info (not necessarily adequate for insertion into article):
A. Abrams, Brenda. " Everything about How to Divorce in Florida: An In-Depth Guide to Divorce in Florida", page 14 (2003): "Parties living together in the same home are considered to be separated if they no longer have sexual relations with each other and no longer share the same bedroom."
B. Wiktionary definition of “cohabit”:
C. Wiktionary definition of “separated”:
D. Random online discussion at Answerbag about separated couples who remain under one roof.
E. “Black’s Law Dictionary” definition of “cohabitation”: “To live together as husband and wife. The mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual relations.”
F. “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary” on cohabitation: “The law presumes that husband and wife cohabit, even after a voluntary separation has taken place between them; but where there has been a divorce a mensa et thoro, or a sentence of separation, the presumption then arises that they have obeyed the sentence or decree, and do not live together.”
G. Google search results for " separation without cohabitation." (558 hits) Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to go around on this again; regarding separation, we don't know more than we know. All of the sources conflict to some degree, and we don't know what any of them, or the people they interviewed, exactly meant by the term. The LAT finding is something real, however, and should be used. But I was in error to phrase the LAT finding in terms of separation; the article is careful to just stick to the 'cohabiting' language, and so should we. I've changed that in the current text, in addition to modified 'sued for divorce' for 'filed for divorce' ('sued' sounded unduly harsh or legalistic or something). So we now have in the article:
I propose we go with this. (It's very similar to what we had before the LAT story came out, except that we've replaced "separated permanently later in 1979;[57][16][184]" with the "stopped cohabiting in January 1980;[184]". Hopefully, this whole story will become clearer from subsequent press stories or biographies down the road, we can adjust then accordingly. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've put this last piece in, as requested. I've replicated the same language into Carol McCain. I've also replicated it into Cindy Hensley McCain, since it was covering the same points. Whether that article needs to go into as much detail as it does about the McCain first marriage is a good question that I'm not sure of the answer to, but one that should be discussed there. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't fifth from the bottom be 895 out of 899? Xboxandhalo2 ( talk) 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
WaPo is on it. 69.183.187.206 ( talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any existing footage of McCain's defiance during the Christmas service of 1968? The references describe lots of foreign media and how he'd swear every time the camera came on him. I think that would make a great addition to the wiki library. LegalFiction ( talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested to discuss this here, so here it goes. There is a great number of material available by a great number of reliable sources that have another version of some of the events... in many ways it came from John McCain himself. I think this material should be mentioned or at least that there are some conflicting opinion in regards to what happened. Here are some links.. if someone want please read through it, I am not that familiar with wikipedia so someone more familiar maybe can go through the stuff and make a suggestion. I do understand that the main opinion should be predominant, but in the interest of presenting a complete picture that might surface in the election in the future, I think it is ok to mention conflicting opinions and contradictions. Here are a number of sources/links. Some links seem less believable others are very.. but I feel some mention of the very large number of materials should be made. Here are teh link, look forward to a discussion between people who've gone through it all... hopefully we can keep this non political.. nailed to the facts. www.infowarscom/?p=109 unreliable fringe source? http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513224/My-years-hell-John-McCain-recalls-life-prisoner-war-Vietnam.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/17/in-1992-pows-accused-mccain-of-collaborating-with-vietnamese/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html www.prisonplanetcom/articles/february2008/020708_never_tortured.htm unreliable fringe source? http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-03-25/news/is-john-mccain-a-war-hero/ http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html many more links to be found by googling "songbird mccain"
Lots of real people real sources.. including video interviews.. anyway I find it warrants a small mention on McCain that there are contradictions or that some of the events are questioned... obviously I believe it should be very small, since f.e. other military heroes like john kerry.. the controversies were mentioned there as well / still are, so in order to paint a full and neutral picture I would suggest to make a small mention as well maybe even provide a few links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok I would keep it rather low key. I am not an experienced Wikipedia user / and also a foreign national so my English skills are not that great. I would write something like (Title: Controversy regarding torture account): There is some controversy in regards to John McCain's account while being imprisoned alleging that he divulged crucial military information such as packing routes in return for better medical treatment. Also the account of severe torture has been called into question by fellow POWs and former Vietnamese guards who claim that no torture has happened, and that his vietnamese nickname as a result of his cooperation was "Songbird".
Then I would post provide a reference link to one or more of the sources I have listed - however I'd need some help with that since I am not too familiar as to what constitutes a valid source for wikipedia of the sources I listed. Also My suggestion is a bit long.. it likely can be shortened more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well when you read up on the sources, there are a lot of people out there, that where at the same location and at the same time. There's video evidence of fellow POW, established newspapers, sources and most importantly McCain's own interviews right after captivity that are enough room to mention this controversy, the same way it is mentioned on Ref. Jackson, John Kerry, Clinton, George Bush - and I believe that the sources and indicators are at least as believable as those for the ones mentioned. I am sure as the election moves forward these things will be developped and researched, the same way they were with Kerry. Making a small mention of that fact would allow to update the developments in that area. I find Wikipedia should present a clear balanced view of a candidate and not just a PR profile. Doing that makes all the information listed much more credible. If you find that the listed information is not valid, please provide sources and references that invalidate the evidence provided. Also your cited fringe theory states that it can be considered if it has been referenced extensively and in a serious manner. If you follow the links I believe it works. If you google songbird and mccain you find 290,000 hits.. I find this warrants to mention this controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
See the discussion above " Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#POW section revised" where the propaganda tape he made that was broadcast to US troops in South Vietnam is documented and discussed. His making of the tapes and their broadcast is briefly mentioned in the article. Generally things on the blogosphere, such as the claimed "Songbird" nickname, are not admissible based on being blogged about. The Washington Post initial article, on the broadcast of the tape he recorded was reportedly run June 5, 1969 under the headline "Reds Say PW Songbird is Pilot Son of Admiral."[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39892], so that is where the "songbird" claim might have started Elevation from blogosphere to mainstream news by a reporter's question at a press conference has happened with anti-Obama rumors. Interestingly, neither the actual recordings made by the US government and submitted to voice analysis to confirm it was McCain in 1969, nor the source recordings made by the North Vietnamese, have surfaced, and all we know about them is a couple of phrases from a UPI report from 1969. Nor have I seen US personnel who served in Vietnam quoted as saying they remember hearing the broadcast (other than in the blogosphere). If one of them was interviewed by a mainstream publication and talked about it as his personal knowledge and experience, rather than a rumor, that might be admissable.As an example, the Phoenix New Times ref listed above quotes two identified officers, "two former POWs who say they were senior officers at a camp where McCain claims to have been tortured tell New Times they knew of no such torture during that time at that camp" and say they doubt he was tortured at that camp as he claims. This stands above most of the rumor-mongering by angry members of the POW/MIA movement. McCain's own (ghostwritten by Salter) books about his experiences in captivity cannot be taken as unquestionable truth. On the other hand, material like the "Prisonplanet" ref, where a named individual claims numerous unnamed individuals have told him about McCain making "32 propaganda tapes" to get special treatment do not rise tho the level of credibility to be included. Mainstream press articles saying that many in the POW?MIA movement are angry at him and that they circulate claims of special treatment could be included in an article about his later Senate career, because angry voters are a political fact, regardless of the truth of their claims, just as it is a fact that the Swiftboaters said bad things about Kerry. Edison ( talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing I find odd... if this is really true 5 years of torture and the entire story about him, WHY, WHY did mccain ONLY receive a Silver Star - it does not really make sense. I am sure back then they had more information... but reading the official line.. only a Silver Star the THIRD HIGHEST Decoration.. When reading his story most think Medal of Honor.. I find that a bit odd... especially considering his family was so famous in the military - which one might think would boost awards a little too... but only a Silver Star..... hmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC) comment 3 in this post is interesting as well http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/23/mccain-vet-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.181.30 ( talk) 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply at greater length tonight when I have time, but the short answer to all this is that the current article includes everything that we have WP:RS for, including those times that McCain "talked". The rest of the claims above are unsupported by WP:RS, including the "Songbird" name. Note that the current article relies very little on McCain's own writing, and instead relies upon the standard accounts of all the American POWs. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Arzel, Ferrylodge, and Edison have all made good points here. The fact that there is a lot of junk on the web about McCain's time as a POW doesn't make any of it true, or any of these motley sites WP:RS. The Tran Trong Duyet statement is the official Vietnamese line — nobody was tortured, which lacks credibility and says nothing in particular about McCain. The statements of POW/MIA live prisoner advocates like Ted Sampley and (from 1991 on, not before) Ted Guy are badly colored by their hatred of McCain's position on that issue, and Guy's claims about "the Plantation" are refuted by Rochester & Kiley's book. The Silver Star medal level for McCain is appropriate — other POWs were tortured much longer and much worse than McCain, a fact McCain readily stresses in his book, and/or were higher in the prisoner command structure. So for example James Stockdale and Bud Day both received the Medal of Honor (and both were/are McCain supporters). Mention of the POW/MIA activist charges against McCain as a fraud, traitor, or "Manchurian Candidate" is mentioned in our articles House_and_Senate_career_of_John_McCain,_1982–1999#Vietnam_redux and John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#South_Carolina, where it became a factor in his political career. But none of this merits inclusion here, because none of it is supported by WP:RS and none of these allegations were made about McCain in the timeframe of this article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the Phoenix New Times article. There are several problems with it. First, the Phoenix New Times and Amy Silverman, the author of the piece, are both somewhat marginal as WP:RS. It's an alternative weekly, and they have had a consistent anti-McCain agenda, somewhat similar to the Village Voice and Rudy Giuliani. Most of the people interviewed in the piece are all worked up over the POW/MIA live prisoners issue, and thus hate McCain for what happened regarding that issue before, during and after the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs hearings. This colors everything they say about McCain's time as a POW; basically, they're trying to retrofit McCain's POW history to "explain" his negative stance regarding live prisoners. As for what Ted Guy and Swede Larson say, yes that's obviously the most serious claim in the piece:
While it's true 'the Plantation' was a different kind of camp, and that physical hammering of prisoners was not as frequent there (psychological pressure was preferred), Rochester & Kiley's Honor Bound, which covers the entire American Vietnam POW experience and interviewed hundreds of former POWs, states that a number of POWs were physically mistreated there, among them McCain. See pp. 340, 363, 364, 487; this is covered by current footnote 108 in the article. It's possible that Guy and Larson didn't know about what was happening with some of the other POWs there, as McCain and others were in solitary, and at all times before "Camp Unity" began later in Hoa Lo, communication was spotty and chain of command was difficult to establish and maintain. Or it's possible Guy and Larson's statement was colored by their own views; Guy did a 180 degree turn on the live prisoners issue in 1991 (see [8]) and I believe Larson went with him. In any case, given all the WP:RS we have to indicate McCain was tortured, I don't think this one claim against that merits inclusion. As one of our WP guidelines says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this doesn't qualify. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph discussing the fire on the aircraft carrier doesn't mention the fact that McCain's reckless "wet start" caused the entire incident. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/35321150/navy-releases-mccains-records. Why isn't this something that gets more attention?~~ Quigonpaj ( talk) 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope we can move this discussion from the main John McCain article to here. That article merely summarizes this one. Tvoz wrote:
"Eager to marry Cindy, McCain urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce", or words to that effect, is what you mean, I think - "pushed for a divorce" is an imprecise idiom whether the New York Times used it or not. "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland, he said." [9] would be a reasonable source for "extramarital". I might be ok with something like "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " - would have to see it in context. I am not insisting on anything, Ferrylodge, and I didn;t say this article was poorly written. I am raising an issue about this section which I believe is oddly worded in a way that could be construed as trying to sanitize the biography, regardless of its status. And by the way, the cultural image section also seems to be worded in a way that takes presumably negative items and turns them into positives, an example being his well-sourced temper. Another example of a questionable item is his "close ties to his children from both of his marriages" - I believe this is a true and sourced item that is fair to include, but you've left out of this article the also sourced item that his children were so upset with his abandonment of their mother that they did not attend his wedding; we have it in the subarticle, I know, but in this article you are telling only half of the story regarding his relationship with his children - the good half. That also can be construed as sanitizing. I am well aware of the lengthy debate that went on previously on this talk page about some of this, and I am not interested in getting into a debate with you about it, having had that pleasure in the past. But I am registering an objection here to euphemism and sanitizing. Perhaps other editors have opinions on this - I'm going to step back for a moment and see, and hope you will too. Finally, I specifically said that removing your FA nomination is irrelevant, so please stop holding that out as a threat. The only thing that will accomplish is it will reduce the number of uninvolved editors who come to this article and talk page to review it, some of whom might share the concerns that I and others have expressed about this. I hope that's not why you're saying you'll remove the nom. Tvoz
WTR responded:
Tvoz has a good point about being given a weekend together to spend at a summer home; I think that would be allowable as evidence of adultery in a divorce proceeding (it's New York, not Virginia or Florida, but see this for "the plaintiff can imply guilt through indirect or circumstantial evidence so long as it leads the reasonable observer to conclude that the parties were inclined toward adulterous acts and the opportunity existed"). Wasted Time R
I went ahead and changed the "pushed" language in the main article to something like Tvoz's suggested "urged" language. This seems like an improvement, since it no longer connotes pushing and shoving. I plan to respond to the other points raised, imminently. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I would suggest that we take one issue at a time. Things would be much simpler that way, and we would have a higher likelihood of success, since we could all focus on the same things.
Tvoz has made some good suggestions that led me to modify the main article. For example, we clarified that the divorce was uncontested. We also removed the possible implication that there was physical pushing between John McCain and his first wife. Both of these are improvements, and I hope you realize that there was no intent on my part to make John McCain look bad. Likewise, I deny trying to "sanitize" the article to make McCain look good, with regard to the other points Tvoz has mentioned.
Here's what the present article says about the pre-marital relationship of John and Cindy:
In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179] A relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[186] John McCain pushed to end the marriage,[58] and the McCains stopped cohabiting in January 1980.[187] John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at that time;[58] the uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[187]
Let's start with the matter of the bare word "relationship." I don't think anyone is happy with this bare word, because it kind of begs for an adjective. As I've said, adding the word "extramarital" doesn't cut it for me, because it connotes or denotes sex, and we don't have a reliable source for that. [10] Assuming that there was sex because they spent a weekend together may not be unreasonable, but it's still original research without a reliable source that draws that conclusion. The source cited by Tvoz (LA Times) says: "As the pair began dating, Lakeland allowed them to spend a weekend together at his summer home in Maryland...." Nothing here about which bases were reached. :-)
Tvoz, you suggest you might be happy with "In April 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain met and began a relationship with Cindy Lou Hensley... " That's better, IMHO, but it still doesn't get rid of the bare word "relationship" which everyone seems to dislike. Perhaps the word "dating" which the LA Times used ("As the pair began dating")? I'm also concerned that we may be over-emphasizing that he was still married to Carol, given that the very next sentence already conveys that information. Repeating stuff unnecessarily is just as conducive to undue weight as bolding it or putting it in ALLCAPS, in my view. How about:
In April 1979,[58] while attending a military reception for senators in Hawaii, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, eighteen years his junior,[185] a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona who was the daughter of James Willis Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch beer distributor, and Marguerite "Smitty" Hensley.[179]
A relationship began, and they traveled between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[186]They began dating, travelling between Arizona and Washington to see each other,[186] and John McCain urged his wife Carol to accept a divorce.John McCain pushed to end the marriage,[58] and theThe McCains stopped cohabiting in January1980.[187]1980, and John McCain filed for divorce in February 1980,[187] which Carol McCain accepted at thattime; the[58]time.[58] The uncontested divorce became official in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on April 2, 1980.[187]
How's that? Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As I was reading the article I came across a single line about a guard showing McCain leniency and later drawing a cross in the dirt. I thought the story was very moving and there should be more in the article about it than a single sentence. When I followed the sources listed in the article I actually found some of them had different versions of the story. Some googling turned up several different versions of the story. I understand the only account we have of McCain's time as a POW is his own, but there seems to be some inconsistency in this particular tale.
In the latest version, from the Saddleback Forum, McCain says the ropes were loosened (and then re-tightened), and the guard later drew a cross in the dirt to show his religious beliefs. [11]
In the oldest version of the story (oldest I could find anyway, 1979), he says "the only real human being that I ever met over there", untied him completely and let him lay down for several hours, and there's no reference to the cross in this version. This is from U.S. News in May 1973. [12]
In his 2000 campaign he would tell the same story as the one from Saddleback, but with an unnamed POW instead of himself. Such a telling is actually already sited in the article. [13]
The only source we have to the latest version of the cross story is McCain himself, and a friend who "vaguely" remembers McCain telling him that story before. No wonder it's only "vaguely" remembered, the story is a little different each time. McCain is 71 now, and add to that this was 40 years ago, he might not be remembering the event correctly after all this time. Which version of the story should we use? The latest? The earliest? One in between? Should it just be removed?
What is the appropriate thing to do?
Dirus ( talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something else. I was hoping to avoid anything that might sound politically partisan, but John McCain is a politician, so this is something else to consider. When looking at the dates you can see that prior to his first presidential run, this story never had a cross in it. Could this part be made up for political reasons? ie, connecting with the religious right. Dirus ( talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(od) History of the story: The 1973 USN&WR piece by McCain was written soon after his return, didn't include everything that happened to him, and often focused on other POWs (since this was the first extended account of the POW experience that was being written up). Between that account and Robert Timberg's 1995 The Nightingale's Song, McCain didn't publish or talk in detail in public much about his POW experience at all. The Timberg book included a fairly detailed account of McCain's POW experience, but still not everything since the book was about five different Naval Academy graduates, not just McCain. Then after the Timberg book was well-received, McCain and Salter published Faith of My Fathers in 1999 and included the cross in the dirt story. In Faith of My Fathers it is a minor aside, told out of chronological sequence and taking up less than a page of the over 150 pages devoted to the POW experience. One of his first uses of the cross in the dirt story is in this famous Virginia Beach speech during his 2000 presidential campaign (the one where he flays the hides of Falwell and Robertson); it's told in third person for dramatic/poetic effect. During McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, he was telling the story frequently. An ad was made using it, that took artistic license and changed the sandal to a stick. But the story as told by McCain has not changed. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we have? When I was writing this article, months before Saddleback and bloggers latching onto this question, I tried to figure out when the cross in the dirt story happened, but couldn't, since McCain doesn't pin it down in Faith or his speeches. (I'm not at all convinced that the May 1969 reference in the USN&WR story is the same thing.) I so indicated in the footnote here that when it happened was unclear. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; McCain's POW experience lasted over five years, and other POWs' longer, and they didn't have any way of writing things down; every account has been reconstructed from memory. There are bound to be errors in memory and inconsistencies among different POWs, something the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley books deal with in presenting a coherent narrative. I find the blogger logic that "if he didn't tell this important story in the 1973 account when he could have, it must not have happened" utterly bogus. It's not an important story in the context of the POW experience. The "Faith" in Faith of My Fathers is not about Christianity or crosses or kind guards. It's about how the POWs survived an endless succession of mean, cruel, sadistic guards and prison officials, often in solitary confinement, often after they had already been broken and forced to make anti-American statements. The "Faith" centers around loyalty to fellow POWs, to the U.S. military Code of Conduct, to the American ideal of freedom, to (in McCain's case) the Naval tradition of his father and grandfather, to patriotism. Yes there was a religious element too, but all these other things were just as or more important. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, as an aside, let me correct the original poster's notion that "I understand the only account we have of McCain's time as a POW is his own." Not true at all. We use the Hubbell and Rochester & Kiley accounts, which piece together what McCain has said with what other POWs he interacted with have said. If you look in the citations in this article, the vast majority of cites for this period are from non-McCain sources. And the most famous McCain event of them all – his refusal to accept out-of-order early release – was corroborated at the time by the North Vietnamese government. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was such a hot topic. Have their been validations from these bloggers, edit-and-runs? I did leave the stick thing out as that did seem a bit much to nitpick over. I had seen something about it when googling, but I didn't find any original sources saying stick, so I didn't mention it. I guess I missed the ad. I also avoided some other talk I had found about McCain stealing the story from an author. Let me see if I can find that again. Someone named Solzhenitsyn. Supposedly he has the same story or a very similar story, and is someone who McCain wrote an article praising in The Sun. [21] This also didn't seem like a big deal to me, even if it turns out the story is the same, that doesn't mean he stole it. In fact, it might be the reason he likes the author, because he can connect with him.
I hadn't thought about him talking in the third person. I guess that's what threw me. Usually when talking in the 3rd person, politicians, such as Bob Dole, say their name. "Bob Dole likes babies!" "Bob Dole will be a great president!" This isn't that sort of third person, but a more removed 3rd person. He says "a scared American prisoner of war." That said, it does fit reading it in the 3rd person. It's probably one of those things you pick up on easier when listening than when reading.
Also, I did figure some stuff was corroborated. I just wanted to avoid flames from people who might say, "well who else are you going to ask?" I wasn't trying to pick a fight, as far as this particular story goes, he is the only source. If so much of it is corroborated though, this brings up another angle you might be missing. If McCain is the only source for this story, it might look fishy with most everything else being corroborated. Perhaps it can be worded slightly different to express this. That might calm all the bloggers you say are mad at this article.
The Huffington Post is not generally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. See here and here. The following guidance should be helpful:
According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[1] However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Wikipedia editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog. If the article can only be accessed through the blog, perhaps the editor should explain in the citations where the article is from and state that the Post is only hosting it.
We might be able to get away with mentioning a Huffington Post blog entry in a footnote, but certainly not in the main text. On the other hand, we can write the main text in an equivocal manner, to reflect that the matter is not entirely settled (e.g. McCain "reportedly" was advuised he might become an admiral). Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I just saw a 2 hour CNN TV show about Obama and McCain.
There were several minutes devoted to the Forrestal incident with a mention that McCain was injured sufficiently to qualify for reassignment outside the combat zone but that he volunteered for assignment on a ship with a pilot shortage.
Help with finding a reference? Fwlok ( talk) 15:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)